State v. Freeman

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: McIVER
• Citation: State v. Freeman, 43 S.C. 105, 20 S.E. 974 (S.C. 1895)
• Decision Date: 15 February 1895
• Parties: STATE . v. FREEMAN.

20 S.E. 974

43 S.C. 105

STATE .

v.FREEMAN.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Feb. 15, 1895.

Trial Justice—Report of Testimony—Defendant as Witness — Foundation for Impeachment—False Representations — Evidence in Reply.

1. A trial justice cannot supplement the testimony of a witness as taken down, after it is signed by the witness, by appending a statement as to the testimony.

2. Where defendant in a criminal case testifies in his own behalf, and denies having made certain admissions or declarations, he may be contradicted without his attention having been called to the time, place, and person involved in the proposed contradiction.

3. On a prosecution for misrepresenting the amount due on a note in selling it, defendant testified that certain produce delivered to him by the maker was intended as a loan, and that its value was not to be credited on the note. Held, that evidence of a statement made by him, when asked by such maker if he had given credit on the note for the value of such produce, that he would do so, was admissible in reply.

Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Oconee county; Ernest Gary, Judge.

John F. Freeman was convicted before a trial justice of obtaining property by false pretenses, and from a judgment of the court of sessions, affirming the judgment of the trial justice, appeals. Affirmed.

R. T. Jaynes, for appellant.

M. F. Ansel, for respondent.

McIVER, C. J. In this case the defendant was carried before a trial justice under a warrant charging that the defendant did represent to the prosecutor "that one A. J. Frady has due him on a certain note eleven dollars, when in fact there was not such a sum due, and thereby obtained of deponent a horse of the value of ten dollars, and the said Freeman knew said representations to be false at the time." Upon this charge defendant was tried before the trial justice and a jury, and a verdict of guilty having been rendered, and the defendant having been sentenced, he appealed to the court of sessions, where the judgment of the trial justice was affirmed. This appeal is now taken from the judgment of the circuit court, affirming the judgment of the trial justice upon the several grounds set out in the record, which need not be stated here, as we propose to state the questions presented by such grounds after first making a brief statement of the case. It seems from the evidence, which is set out in the case, that the defendant, desiring to purchase a horse from the prosecutor, Benjamin Rutledge, offered him a note, which defendant held on one A. J. Frady, for $15, representing that only $4 had been paid thereon, leaving a balance of $11 due. Frady testified that more than $4 had been paid on the note, a part of which was in corn and cotton seed. Defendant, while admitting that be had received the corn and cotton seed, for which he still owed Frady, claimed in his testimony that he had received the corn and cotton seed as a loan, which was not to be credited on the note, but. to be returned in kind. In reply, Riley Hughes was offered as a witness, who, after testifying that he saw Freeman and Frady together at Harbin's Mill, was asked the following question: "State what occurred there, "—which was objected to, and the objection being overruled, the witness answered: "Jack [meaning Frady, as we understand it] asked Freeman if he had given him credit for the corn and cotton seed; said he had not done It, but would do it." The trial justice, in making his report of the case, in which the testimony signed by the witnesses was incorporated, appended thereto the following statement, signed by the trial justice: "The defendant, Freeman, on his cross-examination,...